Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Severn Link (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Nakon 04:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Severn Link (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This proposed ferry service never got past the proposal stage and has been dead for some years now. There was a small burst of coverage concerning the proposal for ferry service, but I don't see this satisfying

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The problem here is that the article hasn't been updated for too long to adequately state the case for notability. Coverage didn't stop in 2011 when the service didn't start, but continued into 2012 (BBC News) and 2013 (Burnham-on-sea.com), and again when a new service was proposed a year later (South Wales Post, North Devon Gazette). Perhaps the article should be about the general concept instead of this company, but there's more than enough here to justify an article of some kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.186.38 (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A "concept" article would probably work. However, I just don't seen this particularly company passing
  WP:CORP. Deleting this article and replacing it with an article on the generic concept of ferry service in that area would be fine. Safiel (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep and expand to cover the wider topic as suggested by 90.244.186.38. Possibly rename to
  usability of the existing content and the multiple reliable sources over a number of years. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - No doubt a worthy idea. When planned, it was liable to fail under
  WP:CRYSTAL, the same applies to this; its failure to start means that it is now NN. If someone can write a worthwhile article on shipping traffic across the Bristol Channel, which was once significant, we can no doubt have that. Such an article might mention this project as an afterthought. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Sure it never got out of the dock, but it was well reported on for several years, and it forms a useful short article about a failed business venture - easily meeting
  WP:CORP. I've given it a quick copyedit and added a couple more refs covering particular points. More could be added.  —SMALLJIM  23:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.